If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Climate Change

Then, there's this little fact: the cause of the Earth being warm at all is.....[drum roll]...THE SUN! That's right children, it's true. The sun causes all the "global warming." Well, it's the source. Don't believe me? Okay. Take the sun away and watch how fast the Earth turns into a giant snowball. And, kids, the sun is a system. It's a nuclear fusion power plant and as a natural system, it is not 100% efficient. It goes thru cycles, warming and cooling. Cooling??? Well, it's all relative. And, the sun doesn't have to change very much (by its standards) to affect the Earth. These cycles can last many, many years....like tens of thousands of years...during which time the Earth will warm or cool depending on the amount of solar radiation hitting it.

In the 1600's the Earth experienced a mini-ice age and guess what!, the planet has been gradually warming ever since, recovering from that ice age. What caused that mini-ice age? Well, the sun went thru one of its cooling cycles, and since then has been returning to its normal level of activity. That means the Earth is experiencing warming too. Keep in mind while 400 years is a long time for we humans, it is a mere blip to the sun.

Re: Climate Change

Originally Posted by dawg80

Then, there's this little fact: the cause of the Earth being warm at all is.....[drum roll]...THE SUN! That's right children, it's true. The sun causes all the "global warming." Well, it's the source. Don't believe me? Okay. Take the sun away and watch how fast the Earth turns into a giant snowball. And, kids, the sun is a system. It's a nuclear fusion power plant and as a natural system, it is not 100% efficient. It goes thru cycles, warming and cooling. Cooling??? Well, it's all relative. And, the sun doesn't have to change very much (by its standards) to affect the Earth. These cycles can last many, many years....like tens of thousands of years...during which time the Earth will warm or cool depending on the amount of solar radiation hitting it.

In the 1600's the Earth experienced a mini-ice age and guess what!, the planet has been gradually warming ever since, recovering from that ice age. What caused that mini-ice age? Well, the sun went thru one of its cooling cycles, and since then has been returning to its normal level of activity. That means the Earth is experiencing warming too. Keep in mind while 400 years is a long time for we humans, it is a mere blip to the sun.

Hey, I know! get the sun to sign the Paris Accords too!

Hey, spend a few bucks and buy that college textbook on climate change. That way you will quit embarrassing LA Tech. Geesh, even kids in junior high know this stuff now. Please quit being a living fossil.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- Thomas Jefferson

Re: Climate Change

What you're not taking into account is you're starting with a false premise: that humans cause climate change. So, all those stats of the US does this % or that % are totally irrelevant.

Let me say again (I have posted this many times before), I believe in keeping the environment as clean as possible. There are practical, sensible things we can/should do. And yes, humans can adversely impact the micro-environment in which we live i.e. we can pollute a river, we can lower air quality in major cities and downwind of a factory. Companies have a right to make products and earn a profit by doing it, fine. They don't have a right to make me smell their factory or breathe in whatever they are spewing out. So! if they have to put a stack-scrubber on their big chimneys, and those are expensive, tough! that's the cost of doing business.

I have no problem with making internal combustion engines as efficient as possible. Getting 50mpg > 20mpg. I have no issue using solar and wind power where it is practical. Same for other alternate energy sources. Etc...

The single biggest problem facing humans today is NOT some contrived global warming BS, it's access to clean drinking water. Right now there are 700 million people worldwide who have no, zero, nada source of dependable drinking water. And there are tens of millions of others whose water source is precarious and could be lost any day. This is a REAL problem.

The whole "climate change" movement is nothing but a politically-driven, self-serving effort to force a "one world" view onto all of us. It has nothing to do with real science or a real concern about the Earth's climate(s). (have to use plural since our planet has multiple climates). Nope, sorry. A single mega-volcano can spew more crap into the atmosphere in a ONE DAY, then all the activity of humans in the US in 30 years. There are right now 18 active volcanos around the world, none of them a mega type. But all of them are spewing gasses into the atmosphere 24/7. (could not find data on what the combined effect of the 18 is). There have been 64 "major" eruptions around the world in the past 100 years. Not sure how the site I viewed is defining "major." Of course each eruption event lasts for some time period, in some cases a year+ (365 days). I guarantee the combined emissions of these 64 volcanos absolutely dwarfs the combined activity of humans during the same time frame (100 years). The primary gas emitted by volcanos, after water vapor, of course, is CO2, followed by SO2.

If you get these volcanos to sign the Paris Accords, you might have something....

The real issue is a cost benefit analysis one - what is the energy and cost tradeoff with CO2 reduction and how do you optimize that to balance the need for energy for the amount of harm it causes to emit.

But the rest of your missive just highlights why concessions are needed for developing countries and why the US bears more burden on this issue.

Re: Climate Change

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

The real issue is a cost benefit analysis one - what is the energy and cost tradeoff with CO2 reduction and how do you optimize that to balance the need for energy for the amount of harm it causes to emit.

But the rest of your missive just highlights why concessions are needed for developing countries and why the US bears more burden on this issue.

You manage to be 100% wrong every time. Actually, it's the Pacific Rim countries with the highest concentration of offending volcanos. So, if we are to lay blame, the US is very low on that scale. We've had Mt. St. Helens, 1980, and it did put crap into the atmosphere. But that event is one of the least significant given the nature of that eruption. Mt. St. Helens was not spewing before the massive explosion, and quickly shut off (its vents were plugged by the debris of the eruption) afterwards. It had some minor events for a few years, the last significant one was in 1982, as it vented for two days.

But, I don't blame the Pacific Rim countries, and do not advocate they make a cash payment to us to compensate. It's just good ole Mother Earth doing her thing.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. government spent nearly as much fighting “climate change” between 1993 and 2014 as was spent on the entire Apollo program between 1962 and 1973, according to a new report.A May 2017 report from the Capital Research Center (CRS) states that “from FY 1993 to FY 2014 total U.S. expenditures on climate change amount to more than $166 billion.”The total includes more than $26.1 billion from President Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill, as well as regular annual budget amounts and federal tax credits distributed over a period of 21 years.In comparison, the U.S. spent $200 billion, adjusted for inflation, on the Apollo space program, which ran from 1962 until 1973 and flew 17 missions, including Apollo 11, which put a man on the moon for the first time. Through the program, the U.S. sent seven men to the moon and back.
The CRS report comes just as President Trump has announced that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Paris climate accord. Under the agreement, the U.S. would have been obligated to pay $3 billion to a green fund by 2020, among other expected contributions.The report shows that annual expenditures on climate change have increased 490 percent since 1993, and the annual amount going through the U.N. for combating climate change internationally has climbed by 440 percent.
Most of the money is not going to climate-science research but to control CO2 emissions based on inadequately tested hypotheses dating to the 1970s. The amount of money spent on further research and experimentation in climate science is $42.49 billion, according to the report. It’s little more than 25 percent of total expenditure on climate change, meaning that 75 percent of the U.S. climate-change budget is dedicated to “efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and their presumed, but not demonstrated, effects.”
Discover the truth behind the conspiracy that threatens your future. Sen. Inhofe exposes how global warming will be used to rob America of its freedom, independence and prosperity. Don’t miss “The Greatest Hoax.”The U.S. justification for such spending combating CO2 emissions is based on the 1979 Charney Report, published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The Charney Report theorized that if CO2 in the atmosphere were to double, the earth’s surface temperature would increase by roughly 6 degrees Fahrenheit, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 degrees. However, the Charney Report also predicted a more powerful warming trend caused by an increase in water vapor, earth’s dominant greenhouse gas.The CRS report states: “In 1979, scientists lacked any comprehensive measurements of atmospheric temperatures, so the Charney Report’s guesses could not be confirmed or denied. But to cause this ‘top-down warming,’ the warming trends in the atmosphere would have to be more pronounced than surface warming trends.”
That’s because much of the energy from atmospheric warming is lost in space and doesn’t not affect surface temperature.Despite the fact that the Charney Report’s data was unconfirmed, it heavily influenced the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed by President George H.W. Bush and ratified, with stipulations, by the Senate. The treaty’s main goal was “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”The UNFCCC aimed to combat the rise of greenhouse gas, even though insufficient data had been gathered to confirm the Charney Report’s hypothesis that greenhouse gases were contributing to global warming.
Meanwhile, “independent researchers have tested the Charney Report’s hypothesis against atmospheric temperature data, which now extends over 37 years, and found the hypothesis wanting,” the CRS report states.New methods and equipment have been developed to test the hypothesis, and the data does not confirm it. As the report declares, “the hypothesis needs to be modified or discarded.”
However, the U.S. government continues to fund projects based on the faulty hypothesis.Although it seems clear that the bulk of U.S. climate-change funding should go into research so that the actual cause of climate change, as well as its potential impact can be ascertained, more than $104.25 billion goes to projects other than scientific research, compared to only $42.49 billion sent to research projects.
Annual expenditures in research have increased by 200 percent since 1993, while other climate change-related expenditures have gone up by an astounding 850 percent. The combined cost of climate-change policy has been $166 billion from 1993 to 2014.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/climate-c...HWhv6F7Dj4M.99

Re: Climate Change

Tyler, as atmospheric CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere, the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold also increases.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- Thomas Jefferson

Re: Climate Change

Other countries got mad at Trump for getting the US out of the Paris Climate change crap!!!! The best analogy I herd of it is this: Everyone in the restaurant was told that someone else would be paying for their food. Then, all of a sudden, they notice that the person who was going to pay is leaving early!!!

Re: Climate Change

Originally Posted by 70TECHGRAD

Other countries got mad at Trump for getting the US out of the Paris Climate change crap!!!! The best analogy I herd of it is this: Everyone in the restaurant was told that someone else would be paying for their food. Then, all of a sudden, they notice that the person who was going to pay is leaving early!!!

Great analogy! It is spot on. The Paris Climate Accord has always been about nothing more than wealth redistribution. More specifically, it is about redistributing the wealth of tax paying Americans. Obama knew that when he signed the thing. Thank goodness President Trump saw through that bullshit and PUT AMERICA FIRST.

Re: Climate Change

Originally Posted by 70TECHGRAD

Other countries got mad at Trump for getting the US out of the Paris Climate change crap!!!! The best analogy I herd of it is this: Everyone in the restaurant was told that someone else would be paying for their food. Then, all of a sudden, they notice that the person who was going to pay is leaving early!!!

Actually, it is the opposite. We are the largest historical CO2 emitter.

So a better analogy is we showed up at the bar first and drank all the expensive liquor, everybody else showed up a few hours later and we all shared what was left, and then after we agreed on a fair way to split the tab (us paying more, of course, for having enjoyed the finer stuff and more of it), we bounced while sticking everyone else with the tab.

Re: Climate Change

Originally Posted by dawg80

What is the hottest planet in the solar system....well, surface temps?

I would put my money on Venus.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- Thomas Jefferson

Re: Climate Change

I feel your pain, Goosey. I think you should leave the US for....North Korea. But, please, leave this forum first. Do us all a favor.

A trumper's solution to everything: distraction from the real issue at hand.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- Thomas Jefferson

Re: Climate Change

Originally Posted by 70TECHGRAD

Other countries got mad at Trump for getting the US out of the Paris Climate change crap!!!! The best analogy I herd of it is this: Everyone in the restaurant was told that someone else would be paying for their food. Then, all of a sudden, they notice that the person who was going to pay is leaving early!!!

The real problem is that people who think that CO2 pollution is a hoax (it isn't) refuse to be educated about the real and present danger that climate change represents not only to the USA but to the entire planet. If you want the GoM to be lapping at the Baton Rouge city limits, keep think that climate change caused by CO2 and methane pollution is a libtard's fantasy. You all are getting played by the fossil fuel industry and you don't even know it.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- Thomas Jefferson

Re: Climate Change

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I would put my money on Venus.

Correct!!! You win a cookie.

Mercury has surface temps of about 500F, but Venus hits 800F. Mercury is so close to the sun that the sun's gravity sucked all of its atmosphere away, therefore, as Mercury rotates, that portion of its surface facing away from the sun "cools" off, thus holding its surface temps somewhat in check. But Venus is covered in a thick atmosphere, acting as a blanket, and it doesn't have a chance to cool off. Venus is called the "Greenhouse Planet" for that reason.

So, some will say "ahah!" that's why "we humans" need to stop polluting our atmosphere. We could end up like Venus! Yep....if there was any evidence "we humans" could have that much impact. But, volcanos put more crap into the atmosphere in a couple of days than decades of combined human activity, and volcanos have been doing this for thousands of years....yet, we are still not Venus. Right now there are 18 active, spewing volcanos around the world putting more CO2 (and SO2) into the atmosphere daily! than all combined human activity can produce in a year. And, there are presently no mega-volcanos active. Just one mega-volcano can match decades of human activity.

But...here's the problem. Volcanos can't be extorted for $billions. Therefore, the fake "climate change" movement doesn't want people to understand the reality.

And....how did Venus manage to "climate change" itself into what it is today with ZERO human activity? Can it be that such things happen "naturally?"